[kevindong]

To be fair to the writer, though he failed to mention it, core count is really what matters for the kind of work load he has (in other words, many many services running simultaneously, none of which is particularly demanding; there's just a lot of them and they all idle at > 0% CPU usage). Intel chips with comparable core count is far more expensive than the Ryzen equivalent.

That being said, you're absolutely correct in that this is far closer to a PC build log than to being a justification for why Ryzen is better than its Intel competitors. I too was expecting some "crazy assembly insights". I also do think it "reads like a rewrite of the wiki over at /r/buildapc".

[Doxin]

So maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but running a lot of idle things at slightly >0% is doable on a single core. my quadcore machine doesn't start showing hickups until the load is up to 12, implying I can run 3 fairly heavy tasks per core before it starts being a problem, I'd imagine I could run a lot more low-cpu tasks per core than that.

So why do you need a lot of cores for multitasking like that again?

[dom0]

The issue is not the "idle >0%" processes, it's about compiling, indexing, searching etc. code which is often CPU-bound (because everything is in the page cache).